One of the those films that actually deserves it's high rating on IMDB

I agree most ratings imo are bs but this movie deseves credit and much more.

Yeah... if only those actually well-constructed and character-developed comic films featuring superhuman and otherworldly beings were devoid of CGI and did away with the spectacle and pure escapism! The nerve of those (supposedly cinematically cheap) films to keep doing their fantastical worlds/source material justice. Why?! Why?!

Say if Joker is the future of comic book films (conveniently this is something I’ve noticed many detractors of comic book films say — oh sure, I’ve seen those who enjoy those big bad pandering films that are made the way they’re supposed to, but still regard them as lesser cinema, call Joker game-changing as well), then that sucks. It does.

This is a game changer in the sense that it’s comic-based, only unlike previous dare-to-follow-the-pages-comic adaptions, Joker was modeled after some oh-so-prestigious Scorsese films - maybe a certain David Fincher film as well - and it decided not to insult the almighty film snob by avoiding cheap things like action. (Also throw in some Requiem for a Dream in terms of its soul-sucking tone.) But on its own merits, I don’t see the originality here. Remove this film’s just barely-visible comic inspirations, and I fail to see how this stands out from a number of modern flashy arthouse and, yes, Oscar-appealing films (dat right).
As is, it’s hard to argue with those who’ve called this film an imitation of other (better) films.

To be frank, I thought the title character deserved a better, more faithful adaption that wasn’t afraid to not pander to comic-hating film snobs. Ah, two can play that game! ;> I appreciate filmmakers trying something new with established characters as much as the next person, but this Joker... to put simply... did not feel like the Joker. Looks to me like Phillips wanted to do something different just for the sake of it, and that is exactly one of the reasons why it was hard for me to take this showy anti-comic adaption seriously. I mean, this film could have been about ANY mentally unbalanced person who’s ready to lose it (Travis Bickle did it much better). Have the comics played around with the Joker’s origins? Affirmative. But ultimately what makes the Joker uh, Joker, wasn’t to be found in this film. So excuse me if I’m missing the uniqueness of this film.

Furthermore, unlike the films it has been compared to it or even some of the biggest special effects-laden films out there (which obvs like all the “real cinema” fans, Scorsese himself has ignorantly disparaged), Joker is.... fairly soulless. And eeeh. Thought-provoking, so-dark-Deadpool-would-wonder-if-he’s-watching-a-parody, and full of depth? Yes, this is the affect it clearly had on many viewers. But by no means are most seeing it as this gripping, super intelligent (heh) and mind-blowing masterpiece. No, and it’s not just those with a supposed agenda that aren’t considering this to be a very good film, let alone a groundbreaking work of art. It all just felt shallow and uninteresting.

All that said, it’s nice (well funny) some real cinema fans now have a comic film they can be unashamed to say knocked their socks off. As not-so-compelling and unrefreshing as I found it to be, I’ll still say it is worth a viewing, sure. I was right though... every time a gritty and more realistic live-action comic book property comes out (they’ve been a thing for the last 4 years, though admittedly even the former ultimate “F superheroes” comic adaption embraced by many haters of out of this world comic/Marvel films, The Boys, dared to be action-packed), certain people will react like FINALLY someone is doing something new with a genre they’re always denouncing (and cue their predictable belittling of comic films considered to be lesser cinema). Smh.


Peace elitists xD